People v. Hardy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hardy

146 A.D.2d 645, 536 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 439

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 17, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 146 A.D.2d 645 (People v. Hardy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Hardy, 146 A.D.2d 645, 536 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 439 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Calabretta, J.), rendered March 11, 1987, convicting him of rape in the first degree and attempted robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[646]*646Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the record as a whole we conclude that the defendant received a fair trial. The testimony of the arresting officer on direct examination that the area in which the defendant was arrested was under surveillance by the police was not improper. Rather this testimony was merely background information which was not prejudicial (see, People v Armstead, 134 AD2d 601; cf., People v Green, 35 NY2d 437). Furthermore, we find that despite the court’s statement to the jury that the lineup occurred shortly after the incidents, the identification charge was an accurate statement of the law and called attention to the key factors of witness reliability and the possibility of mistake (see, People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273; cf., People v Daniels, 88 AD2d 392). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Fiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Calabretta, J.), rendered March 11, 1987, convicting him of rape in the first degree and attempted robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[646]*646Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the record as a whole we conclude that the defendant received a fair trial. The testimony of the arresting officer on direct examination that the area in which the defendant was arrested was under surveillance by the police was not improper. Rather this testimony was merely background information which was not prejudicial (see, People v Armstead, 134 AD2d 601; cf., People v Green, 35 NY2d 437). Furthermore, we find that despite the court’s statement to the jury that the lineup occurred shortly after the incidents, the identification charge was an accurate statement of the law and called attention to the key factors of witness reliability and the possibility of mistake (see, People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273; cf., People v Daniels, 88 AD2d 392). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Fiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 A.D.2d 645, 536 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hardy-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack